Wow- you are a cheap date. google and their shareholders love good little consumers like you that fall in line like you owe them something for their enormous return on manipulating you.

How is Google manipulating me? There is one thing I'm certain about: internet advertising is NEVER going away. Do you remember the internet a few years ago BEFORE the rise of Google and other major advertising networks? The internet was a crap pile of obnoxious blinking banner ads that generally had no relevance to you or the site you were visiting. I remember that fracking "punch the monkey" banner ad; I believe it popped up on this site all the time.

I know it's impossible to avoid advertising on the internet. So I have 2 choices: 1) Go back to the days when ads were pretty much randomly served up to me or 2) Get ads that are actually relevant to me and/or the site I'm visiting. Which do you think makes for a better end experience?

And no, I really don't care if Google knows the sites I visit. If it means I don't have to slog through sites covered in ads about Erectile Dysfunction and penile enhancement, that makes me a happy girl.

Google is getting blamed for their part in this, but what about the owners of the websites who are using analytics and Google ads? Even AI use it. Sites need to make money and seems that targeted ads have become the way for them to do this. And targeting is achieved through tracking and the like.

I mean, short of every website requiring a paywall, or membership scheme, what can be done? If Google/whatever other ad company stops tracking people, my guess is the data becomes less useful, which may mean an increase in quantity of content but surely not the quality.

There's a simple solution to illegal tracking by companies. It's called JAIL !! You throw one of 'em in jail and problem solved until their memory runs out then you throw another one in jail. Pretty soon they'll get the message. Illegal tracking = JAIL.

I believe it's possible to fight against tracking through information to users, so that it becomes a widespread concience topic. Apple didn't reduce the working hours in China because they care about workers rights, but because it gives them good marketing image, given that it's a widespread wish to have fair working regulations.

For example, if there was a web navigator with strong user quote, and such navigator had some kind of "ads ethical-meter" noticing you how ethical (tracking-wise) is being with you the website you're visiting, I'm sure companies will begin taking care of being ethical to users.

If you visit Google, and your navigator displays a message like "this site isn't being ethical with your privacy" in the status bar, the problem would become widespread concience, and companies would take care of it.

(EDIT: this would require implementing tracking-testing in the navigator, of course)

Google operates an essential monopoly over how web sites are monetized. Nobody else can compete because Google sets prices and pays both advertisers and content creators very little, destroying any real market in order to maintain its lock on how web pages are monetized.

It's very much like Microsoft's DOS and Windows in the 90s. No competition means high profits for one company than can virtually exist above the law, while users are given no rights because they aren't even participating in the market: they're being sold to advertisers and content creators are being paid (very little).

Apple's model is to sell users devices, and then to sell them apps and content. Not give things away with the strings of adware/spyware.

This also explains why so much of Google's user experience is terrible. Google isn't serving users. It's selling them. All this nonsense about openness and freedom is equivalent to claiming that communism is about worker's rights.

In reality, all ideological systems that subvert choice and freedom to efficiently use people to sustain themselves are neither free nor open. They just paint themselves as such so they can control everything and erase any competitive threats that would unravel their core.

The fact that Republicans are so dead set against the US Republic standing up for individual rights and freedom is also puzzling, but I guess the anti-science party will do anything that pays it enough money.

Couldn't tell it better myself. Quoting the full text for late readers.

I use Safari 5.1.5 with the 'Send Do Not Track HTTP Header' option ON along with:

Ghostery Safari extension to block tracking cookies

Visible alert bubble within Ghostery set to on to notify me who is setting up cookies and track my visits (I could enable some for example to get the site working e.g. on NFL.com website to enable the videos to load)

AdBlock extension to block website 3rd party adverts

ClickToFlash extension as a good measure

I don't know if that covers everything but I don't see adverts or Tweeter or FaceBook logo/login anymore not even on this site let alone those annoying flash.

You're wrong. I work for a company that does this kind of stuff. Browser security limits actually constrain us quite a bit. But it's just that most people don't really care. They value the wonderful and free services and content their getting more.

The real fact is that the whiners here simply want to use the servers, bandwidth, content, software services, etc. that are provided for free and not have any tracking.

Fine. Don't want to be tracked, don't use them.

That's the problem, it's almost impossible to use the web without some flavor of advanced tracking being applied to the user. So really, you're telling people to get off the internet while pretending to be polite about it. And then sticking it to them by implying that their only possible motivation is that they're freeloaders.

If you can't have your job datamining your users, maybe you need a different career. No other medium for advertising offered or needed datamining, and they've gotten along quite well.

That's the problem, it's almost impossible to use the web without some flavor of advanced tracking being applied to the user. So really, you're telling people to get off the internet while pretending to be polite about it. And then sticking it to them by implying that their only possible motivation is that they're freeloaders.

Actually, that is exactly what I'm saying. But evidently the benefits of using all of the free resources that are available are worth more than going to the work to block or avoid them. I think individuals should be free to use whatever means they wish to personally block cookies, etc. I also think that enough websites (like this one by the way) determine they can no longer monetize their traffic without the tracking (because everyone has chosen to do this blocking), they should be free to refuse service to anyone who has things like cookies blocked for them or switch to a paid subscription model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

If you can't have your job datamining your users, maybe you need a different career.

That's not my career.

P.S. I just tried blocking on Google Chrome and Firefox. No cookies at all. Not from Google or anyone. Safari does appear to not respect the no cookies setting. So maybe Safari has a bug here.

The Digital Advertising Alliance representing web advertisers said they were surprised by Leibowitz's position and the concept that "Do No Track" might actually mean that they can't continue to collect information on consumers that want to opt out of being tracked by ad networks and their web cookies.

The advertising group insists that its understanding of "Do No Track" means that they can't continue to serve targeted ads at users who opt out, but they can still keep tracking those users' behaviors and collect data on them.

It's a sad sign of how much corporate interests control the government that the Feds even waste their time with this "voluntary" shit. So, the tracking industry's "understanding" of "Do No Track" is that it means, "don't let the user know they are being tracked." If this doesn't tell everyone that nothing but necessarily draconian legislation to outlaw this wholesale cyberstalking will stop it and protect our privacy, I don't know what will. This isn't an issue of the right or the left, this is an issue for anyone who believes in freedom, and it is not hyperbole to state that Google and the rest of the cyberstalkers are the enemies of privacy and thus of freedom.

Freedom and privacy go hand in hand, and without one, we do not have the other. The government Total Information Awareness program was shut down because it was rightly recognized the threat this loss of privacy posed to freedom. What Google and others are doing here is no different, but even more insidious because of the bias of many to only see threats to liberty when they come from the government. But corporations who abuse your privacy erode your freedom just as much as the same actions would if undertaken by the government and, in fact, these corporate databases represent simple, one stop shopping for the government when they want information on an individual or group, information that the government is forbidden by law to collect, but not forbidden to use when it's collected by others.

Everyone, liberal or conservative, should let their elected representatives, including the White House, whether you voted for the current President or not, know that allowing this threat to privacy to persist and grow represents a threat to our freedom and our democracy, and that, we, as citizens, demand that it stop now. No corporation has a right to profits at the expense of the fundamental values of our society, and activities that threaten those values ought not be tolerated.

If you can't have your job datamining your users, maybe you need a different career. No other medium for advertising offered or needed datamining, and they've gotten along quite well.

Of course they've data-mined, and for years before the internet. They're just getting progressively better at it. The Cable/sat providers absolutely track your preferences, knowing just what you watch and for how long. Combined with other personal information known about you it offers a lot to say about your family, your income, your political leanings or your leisure interests. I've no doubt that mined data makes it to advertisers or even political fundraisers. Newspapers and magazines have collected subscriber information probably since they began. No doubt that they started years ago combining with stats from other sources (credit providers such as Visa or reporting agencies like TransUnion as examples) to see where to focus their promotion dollars, and for the advertiser's good advice where to spend their budgets most effectively.

With the internet the difference is they no longer have to depend so much on your responses to surveys, contest entries, credit card purchases and applications or statistical studies. All in all it's just a faster, more accurate and wider net to catch the same things they've collected for years and for guidance to promoters, marketers and advertisers on where best to spend their dollars for the biggest bang.

Of course they've data-mined, and for years before the internet. They're just getting progressively better at it. The Cable/sat providers absolutely track your preferences, knowing just what you watch and for how long. Combined with other personal information known about you it offers a lot to say about your family, your income, your political leanings or your leisure interests. I've no doubt that mined data makes it to advertisers or even political fundraisers. Newspapers and magazines have collected subscriber information probably since they began. No doubt that they started years ago combining with stats from other sources (credit providers such as Visa or reporting agencies like TransUnion as examples) to see where to focus their promotion dollars, and for the advertiser's good advice where to spend their budgets most effectively.

With the internet the difference is they no longer have to depend so much on your responses to surveys, contest entries, credit card purchases and applications or statistical studies. All in all it's just a faster, more accurate and wider net to catch the same things they've collected for years and for guidance to promoters, marketers and advertisers on where best to spend their dollars for the biggest bang.

Magazines, billboards and newspapers just didn't have this information. It's not necessary to datamine the audience to make money.

Everyone, liberal or conservative, should let their elected representatives, including the White House, whether you voted for the current President or not, know that allowing this threat to privacy to persist and grow represents a threat to our freedom and our democracy, and that, we, as citizens, demand that it stop now. No corporation has a right to profits at the expense of the fundamental values of our society, and activities that threaten those values ought not be tolerated.

This is a joke, right? Those elected "representatives" and the White House are a far bigger threat your privacy than Google is or ever will be.

Google is getting blamed for their part in this, but what about the owners of the websites who are using analytics and Google ads? Even AI use it. Sites need to make money and seems that targeted ads have become the way for them to do this. And targeting is achieved through tracking and the like.

I mean, short of every website requiring a paywall, or membership scheme, what can be done? If Google/whatever other ad company stops tracking people, my guess is the data becomes less useful, which may mean an increase in quantity of content but surely not the quality.

Not my problem. My computer should be secure from intrusion from companies that I don't want to have there. Google has no right to my information and there should be a way to shut them out without having to worry about which loophole they're going to use tomorrow.

If that makes ads on web pages far less valuable and means that Google can pay less, that's OK with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshDog

Someone mentioned Ghostery. I installed it and blocked everything. Seems to be working.

Correction. You THINK it's working. Google has found ways around many of the processes in place that are supposed to ensure your privacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Same reason you pay money to put curtains in your house.

Congratulations. You win the stupid analogy of the week award.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

So you're admitting that you're making a lame attempt at a circumstantial ad hominem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I'm implying that your career might be in shilling.

And you are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The main people that defend this sort of activity generally draw financial benefit from it.

Do you have some data to support this claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't work for them, I don't like it

But you are a moderator. You actively do things to support the site. You are, in effect, working for them and supporting them regardless of whether you receive any compensation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

and I'm not defending it.

No, you're opposed to but but actively working with an organization that does it:

Quote:

AppleInsider does, however, automatically collect certain non-personally-identifiable information about you, such as your browser type and the IP address that your ISP designates to your machine (which, with dial-up accounts, usually changes every time you connect). This is standard practice for web sites, and is not used for any purpose other than to evaluate how we can design the site to best serve your needs. This information is not sold to any third parties, or available to anybody outside of the AppleInsider staff.

Quote:

AppleInsider, along with thousands of other Web sites, uses cookies to enhance your experience. Cookies are used in the AppleInsider discussion forums to keep track of which messages have been posted since your last visit, easing the navigation of the forums. Cookies can also store your user name and password so that you do not have to log in each time you want to post a message, though you must specifically request that this feature be turned on. You can do this by clicking on "prefs" in the AppleInsider discussion forums toolbar. Cookie data is not stored on the server, and therefore, not available for viewing by AppleInsider staff or any third parties. However, it is possible that security flaws exist in some browsers that would allow other site administrators to write malicious scripts that would collect this data without AppleInsider's knowledge, though this is quite unlikely.

Browsers or third-party software can allow you to block the use of cookies while you surf AppleInsider. Additionally, there are several mechanism available by which you could opt out of such use and placement of cookies and IP address information, such as the NAI Opt-out Tool.

Quote:

A portion of the advertisements displayed on the AppleInsider are served by third-party advertisers, including TribalFusiob.com, Advertising.com, DoubleClick, and other sites. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements on this site and other sites about goods and services that may be of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by MAXOnline, please click here.

It does not mention that it is also using Google AdSense and Google Analytics, et al.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM

And they don't, to my knowledge, turn it into a huge database for sale.

So it's the size of the database that matters? That they're selling it (or not) to someone else vs. using it for their own personal gain?

Fact is that AI is partnering with Google also.

P.S. You might review this sites stated guidelines. since you seem to have come close to stepping over the line #6.

This is a joke, right? Those elected "representatives" and the White House are a far bigger threat your privacy than Google is or ever will be.

That's the fallacy. In fact, they represent exactly the same threat when engaged in the same activity. If you were truly worried about the government threatening privacy, you'd recognize that this is just TIA by proxy. But, if you don't value liberty, or are an enemy of freedom, then, like you, you won't care, or actively seek to undermine privacy and freedom.

Because I'm making arguments and statements that you (even many posters in this thread) don't agree with or like...I'm a shill and should be reported to the moderators?

You want me banned for this?

If so, now who is an enemy of freedom?

Someone spouts an unpopular opinion that you don't like...let's report him to the authorities that govern this forum. Maybe he'll get banned! Fine, if they chose to do that...it is their absolute right to do so. I believe they should have the freedom and right to do that with their property. This is their property and I will respect their decision to exclude people (including me) from it. I also try to do my best to respect the rules they've set for their property. That's what people who love freedom actually do.

But, if you don't value liberty, or are an enemy of freedom, then, like you, you won't care, or actively seek to undermine privacy and freedom.

I do value liberty (far more than most that I've seen) and I am not and enemy of freedom at all.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that companies like Google are undermining or restraining my freedom (or anyone else's) at all. No one here has yet made a compelling enough argument to convince me of that. It is quite clear how my government is though.

Because I'm making arguments and statements that you (even many posters in this thread) don't agree with or like...I'm a shill and should be reported to the moderators?

You want me banned for this?

If so, now who is an enemy of freedom?

Someone spouts an unpopular opinion that you don't like...let's report him to the authorities that govern this forum. Maybe he'll get banned! Fine, if they chose to do that...it is their absolute right to do so. I believe they should have the freedom and right to do that with their property. This is their property and I will respect their decision to exclude people (including me) from it. I also try to do my best to respect the rules they've set for their property. That's what people who love freedom actually do.

You should avoid commenting on things when you really have no idea what you are talking about. Oh, and, by the way, in case you didn't notice, JeffDM is a moderator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

... I do value liberty (far more than most that I've seen) and I am not and enemy of freedom at all. ...

You may pay lip service to it, but, at best, assuming you actually believe what you are writing here, you actually don't give a damn, despite what you may assert, or even think you believe in. Your statements here contradict your profession of love for liberty and freedom.

You should avoid commenting on things when you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Enlighten me. (Or are you just going to toss out a general accusation of ignorance?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Oh, and, by the way, in case you didn't notice, JeffDM is a moderator.

I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

You may pay lip service to it, but, at best, assuming you actually believe what you are writing here, you actually don't give a damn, despite what you may assert, or even think you believe in. Your statements here contradict your profession of love for liberty and freedom.

Only in your interpretation of my statements and your definition of liberty and freedom. And on the subject of commenting on things one doesn't know what they're talking about, your comments on what I believe and care about is in that category.

... Only in your interpretation of my statements and your definition of liberty and freedom. And on the subject of commenting on things one doesn't know what they're talking about, your comments on what I believe and care about is in that category.

Your position on privacy speaks for itself. If you don't value privacy, you don't value freedom, despite what you may say to the contrary. You can assert that you do value freedom all you want, but that doesn't make it so. It's clear you do not. This isn't something I need to prove, you've already proven it for us by showing us your mind on privacy.

Because common sense says that if you don't have curtains that people can look in your windows.

There is no such expectation that anyone in the world can look into your computer without permission. In fact, the typical expectation would be that your computer files are private.

Actually, they aren't really looking into your computer. They are tracking sites you visit. There's actually little they can do to "look into your computer." Plus, all the main browsers offer the ability to quickly and easily "close the curtains." It takes about 30 seconds to do.

Sure you did. Tracking destroys privacy. You support tracking. Therefore, you don't care about the destruction of privacy, or freedom.

It's really quite simple, and it's not my opinion, it's just the way things are. Everyone has to make a choice. Support privacy and freedom, or support tracking. There is no having it both ways. To claim otherwise is mere sophistry.

Actually, they aren't really looking into your computer. They are tracking sites you visit. There's actually little they can do to "look into your computer." Plus, all the main browsers offer the ability to quickly and easily "close the curtains." It takes about 30 seconds to do.

So you didn't even read the article you're responding to?

Here, let me quote one of the relevant sections:

Quote:

Google was found to be subverting the privacy settings of Safari browser on the desktop and mobile devices, which Apple has configured to opt users out of third party and advertising tracking cookies by default.

When the consumer sets the browser to reject tracking cookies, Google has no business going around the user's preferences.

In fact, I wonder if that's a DMCA violation.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

When the consumer sets the browser to reject tracking cookies, Google has no business going around the user's preferences.

In fact, I wonder if that's a DMCA violation.

I agree. However, from my tests, it is not just Google. When I turn off everything on Safari, there are several cookies from several places and that still get set. Not Google alone. This suggests a bug in Safari actually. And it wouldn't be the first time Apple has denied the existence of a bug and/or deflected blame elsewhere. But this is not happening at all in Chrome or Firefox which also suggests it is a bug in Safari. I mean Google would certainly just do this with their own browser wouldn't they?